Finalize Migration

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the output location, the report contents, the inclusion of files lacking adaptation deliverables, and the idempotent/re-runnable property. It does not mention permissions, overwrite behavior, or prerequisites, but the core side effects are well characterized.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence earns its place: the first names the outputs and location, the second clarifies report contents, and the third communicates idempotency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately explains what the tool produces and that it is safely re-runnable, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it leaves gaps around the 'now' parameter, the expected state of run_dir, and how this tool fits into the migration workflow relative to its many siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level explanation. 'run_dir' is inferable from context, but the optional 'now' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain whether it is a timestamp override, a freeze time, or something else.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it 'write[s] the run's manifest, report, and adaptation change log under output/.' This clearly identifies the deliverable set, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling generate_migration_report, so an agent may need to infer the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear invocation context: 'Re-run it any time; it always reflects the current submissions,' which tells the agent the tool is safe and idempotent to call repeatedly. However, it does not mention when to choose this over alternatives like generate_migration_report or start_migration.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.